In October 2015, claimant Warren Price, a marketing consultant for InsideUp Inc., a San Diego-based marketing company, allegedly requested to work on the ground floor of an office building without an elevator so that he would not have to walk up and down the stairs. Price suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and asthma, so he allegedly sought accommodation for his condition, but the company allegedly refused to accommodate him. In March 2016, Price again requested an accommodation. However, he alleged that after he made the second request, his hours were reduced and he was ultimately terminated in April 2016. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, acting on behalf of Price sued InsideUp Inc., alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC maintained that the company failed to provide Price with an accommodation and terminated him based on his disability. The EEOC contended that Price asked to work on the ground floor so that he would not have to walk up and down the stairs with his condition. It asserted that because InsideUp did not provide Price with the accommodation, Price could not take breaks outside, or use the restroom and/or kitchen that were located on the ground floor with the frequency of his non-disabled co-workers. It also asserted that Price was forced to climb the stairs to return to his desk after his breaks, thereby jeopardizing his health. The EEOC further asserted that Price’s performance was compromised, as he needed several minutes to recover once he reached the top of the staircase. In addition, the EEOC asserted that Price was terminated prior to other non-disabled marketing consultants who performed worse than him on certain performance metrics. InsideUp maintained that Price’s termination was due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and that Price was fired due to his poor work performance. According to the company, during the time of Price’s employment, the entire ground floor of the office suite had empty cubicles with only a receptionist, as it was working with a commercial broker to sublet the downstairs portion of the suite. InsideUp asserted that Price knew that all of this work would be done on the second floor when he took the job in September 2015 and that, at no time, did Price indicate that that climbing the stairs would be an issue for him. Additionally, the company denied that Price made a formal request for accommodation. Thus, InsideUp maintained that its decision to terminate Price was made on recurring low performance on the most important metrics, such as total revenue generated, which was one of Price’s primary job duties., The EEOC, on behalf of Price, sought recovery of back pay, and unspecified amounts in compensatory and punitive damages. It also sought significant injunctive remedies, including, but not limited to, enjoining InsideUp from engaging in any employment practices that discriminate on the basis of disability and/or retaliate against employees in violation of the ADA, as well as having InsideUp institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs to ensure that it would not engage in further unlawful employment practices.